by Jims | March 28th, 2011
Exegetical Fallacies, by D. A. Carson. Michigan: Baker 1996, Pp. 148. Review by James L. Smyrl, Ph.D.
D. A. Carson presents a challenge to one of the greatest threats to the validity of evangelical preaching and the evangelical witness. He confronts the issue head on with an accurate accusation against the majority of people who presume to accurately handle the word of God. Carson refers back to the foundation of preaching and Bible teaching, which is the very thoughts of God. From this premise that is a running theme throughout the book, Carson builds his argument for a cogent and textually accurate presentation of the text. He withholds nothing in the means by which one must approach and study a selected passage of Scripture. He clarifies in his introduction that “A critical interpretation of Scripture is one that has adequate justification –lexical, grammatical, cultural, theological, historical, geographical, or other justification.” This definition serves as a foundational premise that is directly referred to throughout his examples of common fallacies within the exegetical process.
He notes the value of this study is discovered in exposing the multiplicity of exegetical fallacies, with the end goal of a more effective preacher in the matters of critical exegesis. This value is certainly portrayed throughout the work as the reader who is also regularly involved in exegesis will discover pitfalls within his own exegetical habits. Once these are recognized, which is another goal of Carson in this work, the practitioner is challenged to correct the fallacy and pursue a textually consistent exegesis.
It is within the scope of the humble to readily admit to cultural influences playing an all too often and crucial role in their exegetical process. Carson notes that the danger in the perpetual deficiency within the exegete is related to the issue of authority. With consistent and deviant practices of exegesis, particularly those related our tradition being inserted in our interpretation; Carson rightly notes that a transfer of authority from the Scripture to our tradition is a natural tendency that is easily undetected due to familiarity.
Keeping with the heart of scripture, which Carson views as the mission to transform lives, he implores the reader to constantly be on the look out and willing to change methodology of study in order to utilize the best resources available that will increase the level of certainty in the arena of biblical accuracy. This level of certainty is perhaps one the subsidiary thesis of this book, but is also a tremendous strength. Upon an initial reading of the fallacies one has a tendency to be reduced to skepticism about his own exegetical practices. However, following Carson’s encouragement to correct the fallacies in one’s own exegetical methods as they are realized, only serves to increase the level of certainty in achieving textual clarity.
A major issue facing evangelicalism arises early in the book. The issue of a lack of unanimity even among those who hold a high view of scripture has served as a deterrent to those whom are not of the same persuasion. Carson notes many areas in which the evangelical movement has diverged within its own ranks and posses the question of how this can be with all holding to the high view of Scripture. He seeks as a goal of this study for evangelicals to “move to greater unanimity on all kinds of doctrinal fronts” (19). This unanimity can be narrowed down to the goal of a unity of thought about the doctrines of Scripture.
It is unusual for an author to provide his own critical analysis of a study being presented. Carson does just a critique noting several dangers of this study of exegetical fallacies. The first danger is that of negativism, which can easily plague those who might use this book as a microscope under which to place all other exegetes. The second and most critical danger is that of distanciation. Distanciation develops when one spends too much time implementing critical analysis and too little time in heart felt devotion to the Lord. Even though this is a scholarly work that is academically accessible to any serious student of the Bible, Carson clarifies the danger of getting so immersed in the technical that the end goal of a clear revelation of Jesus Christ is missed.
The audience as stated above for this work is the serious interpreter of scripture who is not afraid to humble himself and admit faults, sometime serious faults that may have been practiced and taken as authoritative standards of study for years. Carson is concerned more about the weekly practitioner of exegetical work than anyone else. The writing quality is clear and understandable. Although some prior knowledge of technical analysis of the Scripture is helpful, it is not necessary for this work to be a vital component in developing the exegete.
Carson covers or better yet uncovers four primary areas in which the greatest exegetical fallacies most regularly occur. The four areas are Word study fallacies, Grammatical Fallacies, Logical Fallacies, and Presupposition and Historical Fallacies. Each section follows a similar pattern of sub-thesis related to the chapter’s major premise. Within each minor section, Carson uncovers the fallacies that are commonly accepted, practiced, and proclaimed to the church. The premise behind each section is to reveal the fallacies, dissect the reason why each fallacy occurs, and direct the reader to a proper understanding of how to correct the fallacious exegetical practices.
In the first chapter he cautions against the assumption that may come from his revelation of the fallacy of word studies, that there is a freedom of word meaning choice. He notes that any word cannot just mean anything. He provides guidelines for overcoming the danger of the root meaning of a word, suggesting that meaning of a word may reflect component parts and not just the root. He further cautions against a leap to disregarding etymological studies which are helpful in the exegetical process but are not necessarily the favorable avenue for certainty of meaning.
Another fallacy occurs when a later use of a word is read back into the text. This semantic anachronism occurs when a word has gone through decades, or centuries of cultural development. The development is then ascertained as “the meaning” of the word in question. This developmental meaning is then reintroduced as the authoritative meaning of the text. He sites the use of the word dynamite in place of the word for power in the New Testament. Obviously the New Testament writer did not have the idea of dynamite when writing the text, thus an inaccurate exegetical process leads to an inaccurate proclamation and ultimately a total distortion of the text. The author cites that this is not just another form of the root fallacy, but an even greater leap away from the textual meaning. Carson refers to this fallacy as reverse etymology that starts with the current meaning of a word and assumingly applies that meaning to the text, thus inaccurately representing the original intended meaning.
Another word study fallacy takes place when an earlier meaning of a word is read into the text. The word may have gone through a developmental process before included in the revelation, but that process is not taken into consideration when exegeting the passage. Rather the “original” meaning of the word is inserted into the text, ignoring culture, linguistic changes, and authorial background in determining the contextual meaning. Carson gives the example of how the word martyr was used before, during, and after the biblical record was delivered. In various generations and cultural settings the word carried a fully different intent.
Perhaps one of the most prevalent exegetical fallacies committed today is the careless appeal to background material. Noting the use of the water and Spirit words in John 3:5, Carson unpacks an assault against the interpretations that would lead to a sacramental view of these words in relation to Christ’s body. He provides a clear linkage to the words original meaning as well as its developed intent to arrive at the meaning in the text. This section allows the reader to clearly see Carson’s model in action.
Carson moves next to the issue of Grammatical Fallacies on which he gives limited attention. His reason goes back to the audience for this book. He indicates that the bulk of the book is devoted to word fallacies due to the fact that most preachers have an ample supply of word study materials, which often lead to the fallacies, listed in the last chapter, but have limited resources which lead to grammatical fallacies. The first grammatical fallacy certainly relates more to the seminary student or particularly to the graduate who does not have the most recent resources. Due to the discovery of “papyrological” material some of the Greek studies have been refined, leaving other studies outdated. Those who have these outdated materials will find themselves unknowingly making grammatically fallacious mistakes. He follows with details on mistakes made in the use of Greek tenses and moods, and syntactical units. He concludes this chapter with an encouragement that the GRAMCORD computer retrieval system for grammatical construction will soon be out, thus enabling the practitioner to spend more time on the analysis of the material than on the gathering of the material.
His chapter on logic reveals much of the deviant practices in homiletics that build a theology on assumptions derived form basic axiomatic principles. Within the logical fallacies are allegory, formal disjunctions, failures to recognize distinctions, each of which often are the result of a leap from one truth to a theology that ignores other factors within the system of thought. An appeal to selected evidence is the result of a variance of a proof text method that robs the text of “fidelity.” Carson relates the disagreements in evangelicalism over the role of women in the church are a result of these logical fallacies.
The final fallacy relates to the presuppositionalism and history. The primary issue that serves as a foundation for these fallacies emerges from the new hermeneutic. Carson gives much attention to the dangers of the new hermeneutic and accurately links its effects to the fallacies of the chapter. With a wide margin for interpretive approaches to the text the new hermeneutic also allows a wide margin of error in interpreting the text. The argument for the proponent of the new hermeneutic undermine any thought of foundationalism in approaching the text, thus create an atmosphere of textual and interpretive uncertainty. This approach allows for creative license in reconstructing the first century community thus creating the fallacy of inaccurate contextual analysis. This leads to a fallacy that creates causes for events that are not foundational and thus faulty in their assumptions.
A concluding chapter pulls together a multiplicity of other primary fallacies, but fallacies that did not thematically fit under the primary chapter categories. Carson closes the book with a warning to those who practice such fallacies. The warning is that the end result is not just faulty preaching, but a faulty development of people. He encourages a humble approach to the text and a determination to discover the central truth, thus right dividing the word of God.
